For years in the western world. It was thought to be blasphemous to build
higher than the a church spire. The stories of the old testament warned against
reaching too close to the heavens. The builders of the tower of Babel declared:
“Come, let us build us a city and a tower with its top in the heavens. And let us make a name for ourselves, lest
we be scattered upon the face of the whole earth”
But god punished them for building a monument to humanity and not to God by confusing their
language so they could no longer work together. This story is used as the source of our world’s
languages for the religious and some still use it as an argument against our modern world,
but it has interesting undertones for the development of our cities. For centuries the church spire remained as
the focal point of most western cities. The Trinity Church was the largest building
in New York until 1890 when the New York World Building was completed. This marked an end to the Cathedral dominated
skylines of many cities across the world. Those church spires served as a symbol of
piety, but The New York World Building’s height allowed Joseph Pulitzer to expand his
growing business without having to find a large swath of land on the outskirts of the
city. Growing taller served a practical purpose
and it still does in many cases. It’s that demand for space that truly drives
up the average height of buildings in cities. Cities like Hong Kong do not have any supertall
buildings, but the average height of buildings in Hong Kong is among the highest in the world
and that is largely driven by the lack of space available. Hong Kong is confined by the sea on one side
and the Chinese border on the other while having a very mountainous landscape. There isn’t a huge amount of land to build
on. This forced buildings to grow taller to accommodate
the city’s population. . When Hong Kong needed to expand their International
Airport there was little space available. Instead they decided to level two islands
outside the city to create a new artificial Island, where the new airport is now located. This project added 1% to the total surface
area of Hong Kong. When space is limited humans are forced to
get inventive to cope, but in many cities across the world space is not an issue and
these cities usually decide to expand outwards. This is called urban sprawl and it’s been
a topic of debate lately, with calls to stop this decentralisation of cities. Urban sprawl requires little micro-management
of resources, you simply continue to expand current utilities and roads and approve buildings
on cheaper undeveloped land. It’s an easy solution to a growing population,
but it creates many problems of it’s own and is completely unsustainable as populations
grow. You cannot simply keep expanding the city
and allowing those problems to escalate. It has huge environmental and social impacts. One of the most obvious, which my friend Wendover
Productions spoke about in his last video, was an increasing commute time. With an increasing city diameter the distances
we have to cover to reach the city centre increases and it is incredibly difficult to
serve all of these far flung suburban neighbourhoods with adequate public transport. This results in a city dependant on the car,
our least efficient form of transport. This not only has a social impact, as long
commute times are one of highest and most controllable factors that affect our happiness,
but The average American spends 17,600 minutes behind the wheel a year, much of that is spent
in gridlock traffic, that’s equivalent to spending almost an extra 37 days at your traditional
8 hour 9 to 5 job, but it also has a direct impact on pollution and air quality in the
city too. That’s 17,600 minutes of a car polluting
the environment. Reducing a city’s dependence on cars reduces
our carbon footprint on this world. Urban sprawl affects our environment in other
ways too. Spreading our cities creates water distribution
problems. Here in Ireland it is thought that up to 50%
of the treated water is lost through pipe leakage and that problem is not unique to
Ireland. In 2010 it was reported that 3.3 billion litres
of water was being wasted in the England and Wales through pipe leakage. Reducing the sprawl reduces the length of
pipes needed and thus reduces the chances of leakages and the problem can be attenuated
further by creating buildings with self sustaining water supplies. This is becoming a growing trend and consideration
among engineers. LEED or Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design is one of the most popular green building certifications used world wide. It rates how resource efficient buildings
are in their construction, energy use and water use. The Taipei 101 was awarded LEED’s highest
certification with a platinum certificate. It achieved this with it’s own dedicated
water management systems and low-flow water fixtures. This design ideology helped the Taipei 101
to decrease it’s potable water consumption by at least 30% compared to the average building
consumption, saving about 28 million liters of potable water annually. When you also consider that in America landscape
irrigation is estimated to account for nearly one third of all residential water use, totaling
nearly 9 billion gallons of water per day. It would be vastly more sustainable for a
world where water is in ever increasing demand to create cities where we have a larger percentage
of LEED certified high rise residential buildings. This goes beyond just environmental impacts,
there are a number of socio-economic motivations to creating more high rise buildings too. I pointed out that the urban sprawl results
in longer commutes and the roads and public transportation needed to facilitate those
commutes are not free. They need to be maintained and built with
your tax money and while building up is more costly, that cost and risk is usually incurred
on private contractors and the costs of building up starts to decline once you reach a certain
height. To build a skyscraper there are a number fixed
costs, but many of these costs do not increase with the height of the building. Fixed costs like the cost of land, legal fees
and design costs can be offset by building higher. If the building is built on a 100 square metre
plot of land and the building has 40 stories, each floor only takes up 2.5 square metres
of land. That has obvious economic advantages, especially
when you consider design and material costs only start to go up when you reach around
the 40th floor and that critical height is likely to go up as technology improves. Buildings like the Burj Khalifa may be just
exuberant displays of wealth, but they do serve as technology demonstrators. For 25 years the tallest building in the world
was the Sears Tower, now known as the Willis Tower. It uses a bundled tube structure, which maximises
the amount floor space, but if we scale this building to the size of the Burj Khalifa. It’s floor space would be dominated by structural
elements and the interior would have no natural light. As mentioned in my last video, the buttressed
core of the Burj Khalifa provides the structural integrity needed to reach these heights, while
maximizing both the window access and usable space. This is vital knowledge and experience to
have to allow building heights to keep growing while keeping costs down. So you may be thinking why aren’t there
more high rises buildings. If there are all these benefits there must
be reasons that we aren’t building more of them. We will learn why after this quick side note A lot of you have been admiring the footage
I use in my videos and a lot of it comes from, who have kindly sponsored
this video. Videoblocks has one of the largest stock video
libraries on the web with over 2 millions stock videos, after effects and motion backgrounds. With a videoblocks membership, you get access
to over 2 million clips for 40% off per clip compared to competitor sites and over 100,000
clips are included for free with your membership too. I get to use these videos with a 100% royalty
free agreement that means I can make money from my videos, which has allowed me to make
this channel my full time job, without worry of infringing on any copyrights. Membership is usually 149 dollars per year,
but videoblocks is offering an exclusive 50 dollar discount if you go to
or click the link the description below. So they primary reason we aren’t building
higher is because of city planning and regulatory problems. Take New York’s growth in the early 20th
century as an example, building heights were growing and many were unhappy with it. At the time 5th Avenue was filled with stately
mansions, homes to the wealthy families of New York like the Carnegies and Rockefellers. They worried that unless building heights
were restricted, 5th avenue would turn into a dark cannon, overshadowed by these towering
behemoths. These worries led to 1916 zoning resolution
which allowed buildings to grow in height, but restricted their width as they grew. This is one of the primary reasons so many
buildings in New York built during that era taper towards their top. It was a measure to prevent buildings from
blocking the sunlight below, but the regulation had loop holes and architects quickly exploited
them. Between 1916 and 1960 the city’s zoning
code was amended 2500 times. The 1961 Zoning Resolution brought in strict
rules and introduced a new floor to area ratio rule that restricted buildings heights according
to the district they were. The floor to area ratio set how much floor
space could be built on a plot of land. A floor to area ratio of 2 means you can build
a 2 story building on your full plot or a 4 story building on half your plot. R1, R2 and R3 districts are low density zones
like Staten Island and the Jamaica Estates in Queens and they have a floor to area ratio
of 0.5. Where as major thoroughfares in Manhattan
are R9 and R10 districts which have floor to area ratios of 7.5 and 10 respectively. This floor to area ratio rule put pressure
on designers to allocate more space to open plazas or other public spaces around the building
to faciltate a taller tower, whereas the 1916 zoning laws resulted in tiered buildings that
started right on the sidewalk. The 1961 zoning code encouraged privately
owned public space to ease the density and claustrophobia of a high rise city and I think
we can all agree that is a move in the right direction. Zoning regulations like this are important
to prevent brainless growth that destroy a city’s character, but sometimes they are
overzealous and prevent modernisation altogether. Take Washington DCs zoning code that has been
in place for over 100 years with little change. The Height of Buildings act of 1910 prevents
any building beyond 40 metres in height. That is incredibly restrictive and it has
resulted in a city where the tallest structure is a giant stone obelisk and this thing. Even with a relatively small population, Washington
has some of the worst traffic in the US. A study released this year by INRIX found
that the people of Washington waste an average of 75 hours per year in traffic. That means their journeys take 75 hours more
than if there was no congestion. They were second only to Los Angeles, who
waste an average of 81 hours a year in traffic. LA is often singled out as the key example
of this problem of unchecked outward growth. It was a key theme in the movie “Her”,
where the car dominated urban sprawl of the present is juxtaposed with a vision of a glossy,
clean, high rise future for LA. The main character Theodore lives in a highly
developed downtown LA. He lives in a high rise building and works
in a high rise building. He’s able to walk between them and cars
seem to have ceased to exist,he instead uses the extensive metro system to get around. The movie even designed a futuristic subway
map of LA. To create this vision of the future, the producers
digitally enhanced the cities existing skyline. While also mixing in shots from present day
LA with numerous shots from Shanghai’s Pudong district, like this pedestrian sky bridge
which allowed Spike Jonze to film Theodore wandering through the urban jungle without
having the cars at street level interfering with the illusion of a city that has transcended
the need for personal transport. That transformative change seems implausible
and not likely in the near future, but cities can undergo metamorphosis when money and regulations
are not an issue. Take the mid-19th century renovation of Paris
as an example. Paris was once described by one of it’s
residents as “an immense workshop of putrefaction, where misery, pestilence and sickness work
in concert, where sunlight and air rarely penetrate. A terrible place where plants shrivel and
perish, and where, of seven small infants, four die during the course of the year.” This is an incredibly stark description of
Paris, when present day Paris is often fawned over for it’s wide boulevards, amazing architecture
and extensive public transport system. Paris of old was plagued with problems caused
by the outdated planning of it’s medieval past. Paris was in need of renovation and Napolean
III made it possible by giving the money and power needed to Baron Haussmann. He transformed these narrow streets and old
dilapidated buildings into spacious boulevards. (Rue de Rivoli) He revamped all of these streets in red and
created two new parks for the cities residents.Napolean III and Haussmann helped transform Paris into
the charming city of light that 16 million tourists now visit every year. But it may be time to start rethinking Paris’
city planning once again. The lack of housing in central Paris has caused
prices to raise so high that only the rich can afford it. Forcing the working class families of Paris
to the outskirts of the city. Creating huge disparity of wealth between
the centre and outskirts. This map shows the concentration of social
housing as a percentage of total residences, with the largest percentages being located
furthest from the city centre and even now these people are being forced further outside
the city limits as gentrification occurs. Paris is no stranger to revolts of the working
class with notable riots in 1968, 2006 and just this year Paris saw more riots as new
labour laws were passed giving employers more power to increase working hours, decrease
holidays and decrease pay. The lack of affordable housing compounds these
social problems and the main cause of these prices is Parisians unwillingness to build
over existing buildings. During Haussmann’s renovation of paris height
restrictions on buildings were raised from 16.5 to 19 metres, but the transformation
of Paris took place in a time where elevators did not exist. In 1967 the height restrictions were lifted
and the Montparnasse Tower was constructed soon after. A building that is loathed by Parisians. It sticks out from the surrounded buildings
like a sour thumb. There is a fine line between progress and
regression. Paris renovated to rid itself of the claustrophobic
narrow streets of the past, building higher without thought will bring it right back to
that. The construction of this building resulted
in the height restriction being reduced to 25 metres for central Paris. France is a heavily regulated country and
when it’s rulers decide they don’t want change, change will not occur. But one part of Paris proves that modern high
rise buildings can be introduced without destroying the character of the city. La Défense is Europe’s largest purpose
built business district housing 180,000 daily workers. La Défense proves that skyscrapers can be
incorporated into the historic background of Paris without destroying it’s charm,
but La Défense is a financial district. It was built to create office space and houses
just 25,000 permanent residents. There is little motivation to build high rise
buildings to reduce housing prices as it is cheaper to push people to the outskirts of
the city. Paris is not alone in these problems, London
has been criticised for the same problems and Vice News made an excellent documentary
about the effects of this gentrification of working class neighbourhood. There is no easy way of balancing preservation
and growth, but we need to put our countries leaders under more pressure to consider this
and not just follow the cheap easy route, because the problems will only get worse as
our populations grow. If we allowed those height restrictions to
stop us from building on 5th Avenue, the world would have been deprived of iconic buildings
like the Empire State and Flat Iron Buildings. Great cities are not static, they constantly
change and move with the times. The greatest of our modern cities like New
York and Singapore function because their height enables a huge number of people to
work and live on a small piece of land. That is something our world is going to need
going forward as our populations continue to grow. Thanks for watch. You may have noticed this video is about twice
as long as my usual videos. I wanted to experiment a bit and see how longer
videos do on this channel so please let me know what you think in the comments or on
twitter and tell me a bit about your city and how you would like to see it change. I also want to take this time to thank my
patreon supporters properly, there are 154 of you supporting this channel on patreon
and that is insane. You have helped me buy a new laptop so I can
edit quicker, a new microphone to improve my audio among other things. I cannot thank you enough for supporting and
believing in this channel. It means the world to me. This month I have travelled to North Carolina
to spend time with my family and on the way I stopped in New York during the supermoon
and it really solidified my love for New York. Check out this quick clip I took while there.

Tagged : # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

100 thoughts on “Why Build Higher?”

  1. Let me know what you think everyone. It's a lot longer than normal, a bit nervous it's too long.

    If you haven't please click that little bell next to the subscribe button. YouTube has been acting funny lately and there are reports that some videos are not showing up in the subscription box. That button will get you notifications when I upload.

    If you have any questions my twitter is the best place to get hold of me:

  2. For every public bus even only one-quarter filled about ten cars are taken off the road, ten parking spaces open up, and hence half a minute of commuter time is shaved off the schedule of EVERY person sharing that same area of traffic.
    Oh, and ten people who'd otherwise be more of a hazard texting while driving are also taken off the road so the rets of you can be that hazard.

  3. The one problem no public speaker dares talk about is population control. We are just told 'the world population will grow hence we need to fins solutions to accommodate it.' We are told to just take it at face value that economic growth is good because it's necessary for the growing population, without ever raising the question whether it would be more sustainable to just promote more birth control, more stable retirements, and fairer distribution of the wealth that so many millions of underpaid workers sustain.

  4. I just found your channel and liked it!!

    Wow!! 😮 So well done 👍
    I have watched 4 of the videos so far and ALL of them have been such a well done ‘slip’ of partial truths and assumptions. If anyone is reading this please:

    1.) Do your own research about the content and concept of this video and this channel.

    2.) Read what other commentators are saying.

  5. Lets not forget that when paris was redone it resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of poor people – which most likely also lead to more death and suffering

  6. 13:00 Um, the Yellow Vest riots were protests against gasoline taxes. Please consider facts that do not reinforce your hyper-urbanist point of view.

  7. Sometimes i watch your vids, not because I'm particularly interested in them, but i like the soothing tones of your Irish accent

  8. I usually really like your videos, but this one was a bit vague in its claims… building higher makes more sense? would be nice to have a more scientific approach to that and also taking into account structural mass, lighting, elevators, security etc. as well as looking into real data from different cities about their densities…
    Thank you though for your work and the video, best wishes

  9. Want crime, drugs, poverty and hate to spread? Allow gentrification to exist. Paris no longer is the city of love, glamour and romance, its an exemplar monument of pestilent vanity.

  10. Egh…downtown, skyscrapers, congested living spaces…not a fan. I still like suburban homes with a garage and front lawn. Not as practical I guess but that's how I picture family homes. Skyscrapers are nice when you're in your youth and just wanting to live in the city center for work and convenience.

  11. Honestly I wouldn't change the center of Paris, there's too much history and french culture involved. I would agree on building higher in the outskirts as you say but not destroy the historical center and rebuild higher.

  12. love the longer videos. halfway through i paused it to check if it was about to be over, because I was so used to your shorter ones. I was excited when I saw that there was more video to come. My city is las vegas and gentrification is not so bad, but we definitely are like everyone else in that we could benefit from green buildings.

  13. errr isn't the yellow vest movement more about the french government's ever increasing taxes on the people?

  14. "And vox news made an excellent.." No. If Vox did a piece on it then it's probably not a real problem, or if it is a real problem then whatever is causing it is probably the exact opposite of whatever Vox wants you to believe.

  15. seems to me the solution is to gradually raise building hight limits. Say you cap them to 6 floors, then when rents rise beyond what you want to 8 floors, then 10 etc. one district at a time. Buildings will be rebuilt in a style similar to what preceeded them to avoid excessive change in sreet appearence if that is what you want (though today in NYC you get a mix of all masony and brick alongside glass-faced construction, but of the same height and it doesn't look awful).

  16. At 4:21, I thought you said XType A-101", and I thought, "I'm not familiar with that LEED certificate…" 😀

  17. So your in Ireland telling us what's best? Not everywhere can build up. At least with urban expansion people get to live with more freedom more space and more enjoyment of our surrounding's.

  18. The Great Wall of China peaks at 1,439m. Hong Kong peaks at 957m. You're telling me they can't figure out how to build up a hill? Hollywood Hills is around the same elevation and it's covered in housing.

  19. I like your videos a lot and you usually seem to know what you are talking about.
    However about Paris I must disagree. What you might not see is that even though its buildings are not very high (rarely over ten floors) the city is incredibly dense (5 times denser than London for example).
    There are 20 000 inhabitants per square kilometers in Paris. The city is actually very small (basically a 10km diametre circle) and making it denser makes a lot less sense than developing and densifying the close suburbs (it's an exception to your video I think), partly because public transportation is already super developed and it is practically impossible to density it (however it is possible to keep extending it to the suburbs).
    Also the reason people are rioting has little to do with housing and a lot to do with unemployment and a bad job market.

  20. In the grimdark far future of the 41st millennium…cities are so large, the dregs live in the bottom 90% of the colony worlds because the buildings are just TOOO FRIGGIN BIG!

  21. World population is projected to plummet by the end of the century, based on current birthrates. Can you imagine all of the abandoned suburban areas in the US?

  22. Format was really nice, I think a mix is good; also that you’re referencing other similar vids instead of duplicating their content is really significant in that context. Definitely helps that it’s a more unwound pace as well.

  23. But why build higher when we can build lower? Our underground is really underutilized and further transport and storage space could be provided by tunneling.

  24. what about interlinked? a monorail cuts the need for a car take elevator to the mono rail take the mono rail straight to the building you want take a elevator to the floor…..

  25. Exactly how does putting the same amount of people in a smaller area solve traffic congestion? You will now have a lot less streets to go around between the same amount of cars.

  26. Sprawl probably does decrease the net quality of life for most people. But, one might spend some time thinking about the tradeoffs that people are willing to have if it means living way TF out in the burbs. It's not just that land is cheaper by dint of greater quantity supplied. Often the land is so much cheaper because it isn't as heavily taxed, or there are fewer regulations. The schools may be better. The crime is almost certainly lower. Sometimes, it's necessary because the workplace can't be in the middle of the city (industrial chemicals, etc.,)

    In other words, before sniping at people for fleeing the cities, one should first recognize that nobody likes to commute, then, look at the things that are driving them away, and the policies and policy-makers thereof.

  27. Just for the record, Hong Kong most certainly does have supertall buildings. Supertall is a defined term. Anything higher than or equal to 300 meters/1,000 feet is deemed a supertall building. Anything over 600 meters is called a megatall.

  28. I love this channel. It is compelling in ways that even my WWII history videos (a favorite) cannot match. I like the variety and technical depth of the subjects. Longer videos would be that much more interesting, particularly with all of the technical and contextual information you provide on your subjects. Thank you for your work.

  29. This why I believe one of the main reason WW2 happened (specifically the unnecessary carpet bombing of European, African, and Asian cities) was to flatten old cities around the world so new building constructions was possible without the hassle of relocating millions of people and keeping records of their property. Can't create something new without clearing away the old!

  30. sounds like the problem isn't decentralized living, it's centralized work and the ridiculous tradition of maintaining worthless patches of grass. cut commutes by moving work closer to the people, and save water by not dumping it on the fucking lawn

  31. "LEED Leadership in Energy and ENVIROMENTAL design, most populor GREEN certification used world wide it rates how EFFICIENT buildings are in the MATERIAL use, ENERGY use and WATER use."

    LEED was already dated when it was brought out. Most of its focus is in "eco" effeciencey. Economy.. money. Its about resourses. again. Money. "GREEN" is a common jibberish word to trick people into thinking somthing is sustainable enviromentaly. Passive design (e.g good orentation with the sun and insulation can heat a home without mechanical heating)and sustainable materials (made from materials in a cradle to cradle cycle, no waste, no pollution) Are the two main "enviromental" things we need in construction but C2C and Pasive Haus certification arent as populor. Because its about long term benefits. not instant savings. The bulk of the enviromental stuff we hear today isnt about the enviroment but still just "eco" , its about saving money, resourses and energy.

    Look at RECYCLING. The only 2 materials we use at home that are physicly rescylable (can be melted and restored to the same quality forever ) is metal and glass. Paper is biological so it rots (along with the inks and dies on it) and plastic is from oil (a "useful" byproduct after producing fuel), so denachered biomater, and it breaks down into toxins and can take centruies doing it. Plastic is reuseable to a point as paper is (you have to add virgin material to shore it up) But it is not recyclable, never has been never will be, it still ends up in the landfill as Waste that last centuries. We need to stop using it. Which means facing the oil companies. And thats not going to happen for a while. So they pick on consumers instead.

    Weather its "Green" or "Enviromental" or "recyclable" not many of us seem to understand the language of the enviroment and enviromental economy. We all use it wrong, even engrineers, and I can vouch for Architects doing it, LEED for sure.

  32. I think one of the points you missed especially with London is one of the reasons it doesn't have a high skyline is becuse it's built on clay therfore the foundations have to be much deeper

  33. 17,000 something minutes a year… let me pull out the calculator to see how many hours/days that is. Good stuff, though, enjoyed watching your videos after discovering your channel today.

  34. The reason that it's cheaper to push people outward is because the government subsidizes urban sprawl by paving the planet and resulting in a car culture, as well as what you mentioned about zoning laws. I have to disagree with you that everyone agrees about zoning laws having a place. I'd argue you should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that zoning laws are required for best outcomes.

  35. You're channel is one of the best.
    So well informed and you also share the sometimes painful but obvious truths.
    Keep up the good work.

  36. i from jakarta, my country it's rich but a lot of people mind is so "poor" my city is singking meybe Real Engineering have some solution for stoping singking, before too late..

  37. Thanks for all your videos. Watching this one it featured out how much common skyscrapers ressemble over the world. A lot of the buildings in the background of the featured one or buildings in large sceneries exists in la Defense or other places in Paris Area in a identical form (same shape, same facade, same color, same alternance of pattern from bottom to top).

  38. it's a good idea to build higher if there's not enough space to build wider, problem is, building higher creates higher population densities and may not have the infrastructure in place to manage the population density it'll create, so there's a lot of negotiating that has to be done with city officials to get certain infrastructural upgrades built alongside the project, new bridges, new highway networks, sufficient subways and transit

  39. Great video and a great argument. One point to add to Haussmann's plan was the need for wider boulevards to move troops during times of civil unrest or another revolution. As much as this revitalization was necessary for the health of the city, the needs of governmental control (as you mentioned) were also just as important.

  40. Building higher buildings (more than usual small buildings, houses etc) in general saves us a lot of space. For example, someone builds 20 houses in a row. That would be too expensive as he would have to buy all the land then build the houses. But when it comes to high buildings, he may only need to buy 1 land and build the tower. So building more towers would help out the overpopulation problem for some more time, and it would save people a lot of money.

  41. I like the video, but I take issue with the idea that a push towards open plazas is a good thing. There was a reddit post a few years back by an LA architect who said that the reason so many of the new developments are luxury apartments is that the zoning code restrictions make it so expensive to build new units that only luxury units can pass the break-even point.

  42. People need open, green space. Tokyo has many small but tranquil beautiful parks all over the city. Sitting in them allows one to relax and be with nature. We have so many ideas of the past that need to be overcome. Motorheads, with the roar of the engines and the idea of backyards and privacy need to be changed. It will take a few generations. If I could have a view of the sun sight or sun clipse and a tranquil park to sit in and day dream I could live 25 stories up and get around by bicycle or walking for all my needs. Noise and light pollution are a problem in urban areas.

  43. Urban sprawl is the primary way by which many Western societies deal with class conflict. The rich and the working poor live in the cities, the middle class in the first and second rings of suburbs and what you might call "middle-class entrepreneurs" or the "aspirational class" (people who start/own businesses but are not rich) sometimes build communities in a third outer ring. Meanwhile, the "untouchable" class is pushed into small rural towns. Americans tend to think one class will "win" with its preferred urban policies (e.g. rich people think they'll win if the middle class lives in dense communities, and vice versa) but if you visit an Asian country you'll see this isn't the case, you just get the same class conflict in a smaller geographic area.

  44. I would like to ask a question. Is it cheaper to buy a small plot of land and build high? Or Is it cheaper to buy a big plot of land and build lower?

  45. I must admit, I find your narrative to be both engaging and educational.
    The increased length of this video is very conducive to the absorption of its content in my opinion.
    Keep up the solid work my friend.

  46. I live in Gotham. They have a terrible housing crises. It’s built so close to the water that I have to take a private yacht where I want to go, and we still get congested!

  47. Building should be assembled off site and brought in. Then stacked. These structures could be disassembled as needed or easily modified.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *